Area profiles from three ECoG patients did not improve a fixed forecast in five ECoG patients and six fMRI adults

We tested whether visual area labels improve forecasts of responses to two images. Three ECoG patients supplied six fixed area profiles and their common mean. Only single-image responses set a scale at each test site. Reserved tests used 39 contacts in five other ECoG patients and six regions in six adults from a separate fMRI study. Mean gain, defined as common loss minus area loss, was -0.02916 in ECoG. Its 95% person t interval was -0.06670 to +0.00838. Eight fMRI records included two repeated people with unknown links. Across all 72 possible identity links, mean gain was -0.03986 to -0.02449. The interval union was -0.07496 to +0.01141. The fixed positive shared rule failed, with p = 1. Area labels raised the observed mean error, but this does not show that visual areas have the same dynamics. Several area profiles used only one training patient. The package supplies a reproducible transfer test, source versions and terms, compact data, all predictions, uncertainty checks, negative and discordant results, code and figures. Clinical sampling, source processing, different spatial scales and fixed training data limit scope. These are new endpoint tests in reused studies, not new acquisition cohorts. No shared neural cause is established.

human neuroscience · ECoG · fMRI · temporal summation · repetition · anatomical transfer · prediction · negative result